Friday, October 9, 2015

Sedevacantist and Roman bishops and clergy want to remain politically correct

Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada  sedevacantists have been informed that there is a choice in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. Yet they want to interpret LG 16, LG 8 etc in Vatican Council II as being explicit and not implicit, concrete instead of theoretical, visible instead of visible.

Why would they want to do this, it's  just like the bishops and priests in Rome? Both groups the sedevancantists and the Vatican, know it it is irrational. They continue like this since it is politically correct. There are no threats to their property, their churches, their reputation etc.They are not really interested in Catholic doctrine.

If they say that LG 16 refers to an invisible case then it means their politically correct position with the Left has changed. It would mean they were wrong all these years, there was a fault in their reasoning.Since it would mean Vatican Council II now supports the old ecclesiology of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They would be affirming the Feeneyite traditional version of the dogma.
This would mean Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger were wrong in the past but worse still it would put the sedevacantists in the USA in direct conflict with the Jewish Left.
Immagine correlata
Immagine correlata
Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada would also be saying, if they made the change, that Vatican Council II  says all Muslims need 'faith and baptism' (AG 7, LG 14) for salvation.Now if they admit that LG 16 was not an exception to AG 7, LG 14 it would be saying LG 16 is not explicit and it does not refer to concrete cases. So there are no exceptions then in Vatican Council II to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors. 
For Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Di Noia Vatican Council II is a break with the Syllabus of Errors since LG 16 is explicit. So they did not celebrate the anniversary of the Syllabus of Errors in Rome.It would also not be politically correct. So they pretend that LG 16, LG 8, UR3, NA 2 etc refer to visible and not invisible cases.
The sedevantists have kept quiet on this issue over the years, even after being informed. It is the same with the  bishops and priests in Rome to whom I have spoken to or contacted via fax and the Internet e.g the Auxiliary bishops at the Rome Vicariate.
If they say LG 16 refers to a theoretical and invisible-for-us case and so is not a defacto exception to all needing to enter the Church formally, with faith and baptism there would be consequences. They would be saying the Prophet Mohammad and his companions were on the way to Hell at the time of death.They did not have 'faith and baptism' according to Vatican Council II and not just Catholic Tradition before 1960.
But they are not saying all this.They are part of the world. The prudent. 

They dare not say  LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc is implicit instead of explicit, invisible instead of visible.
Neither are the priests and bishops in Rome wanting to affirm Vatican Council II in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
Immagine correlata
Life is comfortable in Florida or Rome when Feeneyism is condemned. There is no one to charge you with being Anti Semitic, or racist or an Islamophobe.
It's all peaceful at the sedevacantist Most Holy Family Monastery, in Florida, USA. They are Cushingites and not Feeneyites. All is well. Cushingites say there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Feeneyites say they do not know of any case on earth saved outside the Catholic Church.
To be a Cushingite is to be politically correct with the Masons, the Left and others who oppose the Church.
Immagine correlata
So the cardinals and bishops in Rome are Cushingites.There is no trouble.
Pope Francis wants the SSPX and the suppressed Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate priests to accept Vatican Council II with Cushingism. This is how he interprets the Council.
For him crypto Lefebvrism is rejecting Vatican Council II in which LG 16, LG 8 etc are visible instead of invisible.They must accept Vatican Council II with LG 16 being explicit instead of implicit to get canonical status or to have their situation regularised.They are already interpreting Vatican Council II with LG 16 being explicit.Unlike the Magisterium they reject the Council and are unaware that LG 16 etc are invisible, implicit and known only to God.
Even conservatives like Fr. John Zuhlsdorf and Michael Voris have compromised. They recently announced that there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They confirmed their Cushingism and protected their worldly interests.
There is a choice there for all. They can intepret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism, i.e LG 16 etc refers to invisible cases.This  would mean Vatican Council II is in agreement with the old ecclesiology, the traditional teaching on salvation.But they are not going to put their life style at risk.
The sedevacantist website there is so much talk of theology and the sedevacantism position etc yet Bishop Sanborn and his clergy will not answer the following three points. It would be the same with the clergy here in Rome. They want to maintain the status quo her. It is more important then proclaiming the truth of the Faith, especially in a hostile environment without and outside the Church.

The blog owner at Introibo Ad Altare Dei and the sedevantist bishops and priests are not touching these three points. They want to remain politically  correct like their Roman counterparts.
1.1.Baptism of desire (BOD) is not relevant to EENS.So why does Fr. Anthony Cekada say the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary religious, at the St. Benedict Centers USA, are in mortal sin for not accepting BOD with reference to EENS.
2.The SBC say they accept BOD and it will be followed with the baptism of water.These are hypothetical cases. Why does Fr. Cekaga consider hypothetical cases as being exceptions or relevant to the dogma EENS?
3.So why do the professor at the sedevacantist seminary make this claim that they are in in mortal sin? Is he not wrong?

So LG 16 is also not an exception to EENS for you?
Immagine correlata

1. We can't see the dead. Period.
Yes that makes sense. So since we cannot see or know the dead- saved in BOD,BOB or I.I and allegedly without the baptism of water,these cases are not relevant or exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). Agreed? This is Feeneyism.You accept this? Are you breaking ranks with Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada?
 Immagine correlata
IAAD does not comment on this too: Is LG 8 (subsist it ) an exception to the dogma? Why is it mentioned on the sedevacantist website?
For me LG 8 like LG 16 is not an exception to EENS. The sedevacantists hold the liberal position on this issue and they do not want to change.
Like priests in the main line churches in Rome, the sedevancantist priests do not want to comment upon this issue.

The subsist it confusion is based on B being an exception to A

'Subsistit it'(LG 8) is not a VISIBLE exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades

Actor James Caviezel says, if it weren’t for Medjugorje, he would have never played Christ in “The Passion”

In February, 2010, James Caviezel made his sixth pilgrimage to Medjugorje, and afterwards travelled to Vienna where he gave an interview to Christian Stelzer for the magazine Oase des Friedens. The following is taken from the Croatian translation, published in the latest edition of the Medjugorje parish magazine, Glasnik mira.
• Jim, can you tell us, how did you hear about Medjugorje?
My wife came to Medjugorje while I was in Ireland, shooting the movie “Monte Cristo.” Things were not that great, although I worked seven days a week. One day she called me, and I could notice in her voice that there was a change. She started talking about Medjugorje, and how one of visionaries was about to come to Ireland. I interrupted her by saying: “Listen, I really have some serious stuff to do. I am not able now to go into anything with any of the visionaries.” Besides that, I thought that, as a Catholic, I didn’t have to necessarily accept Lourdes or Fatima or Medjugorje. That is how I thought. I remember that in the Catholic school I attended earlier in my life, when we heard about Medjugorje we were thrilled, but we soon found out that the local bishop was objecting and considered the apparitions to be false, and so we lost our interest immediately.
The visionary Ivan Dragicevic came to Ireland, and I knew straightaway that I would not have time for him, since I had to work all the time. One day my movie partner Jim Harris wasn’t feeling well, so I got the day off, and I was able to attend an apparition. I stood at the very back of the packed church, and I wasn’t quite sure about what was going on. But when the man next to me in his wheelchair fell down on his knees at the time of the apparition, I was deeply moved. I thought, This handicapped man, despite all of his pains, is kneeling down on the cold stone floor, and he is praying! Today I realize only God could have known me so well. He knew where exactly He needed to touch me to get my attention!
Although it might sound strange, on the following Sunday, I got another day off, and I was able to meet with Ivan, which was my wife’s special wish. During the time of apparition, I knelt close to him, and I said in my heart, “Okay, here I am. I am ready. Do with me what you want.” In the same moment, I felt as something was fulfilling me. It was very simple, and yet unique. When I got up, tears were running down my cheeks, and I started to cry with all of my heart.
Ivan told me, “Jim. Man always finds time for what he loves. If somebody who doesn’t have any time finds a girlfriend and falls in love with her, he will always find time for her. People don’t have time for God, because they do not love Him.” And he continued, “God is inviting you to pray with the heart.”
I asked him: “How am I supposed to do that?”
“By starting to pray,” he replied. In that moment the doors of my heart were opened. I couldn’t have even dreamed of that being possible. We went to a restaurant, and I must admit that the wine and food I had was never as tasteful as on that particular night.
Something started to change within me. My wife wanted to teach me on many occasions in the past how to pray the rosary, but I always refused to learn. Now I wanted to pray, but I did not know exactly how to do that. I just felt that my heart was opened. One morning, as I was driving to work, I said to the driver who was taking me for filming every day, “I don’t know how you feel about this, but I would want to start to pray the rosary.” To my amazement, he just replied, “Okay, let’s pray.”
In the warm light of love that I felt within me, I was able to realize where I really was, how many temptations I had, what my feelings were, how weak I was, and how strictly I judged other people.
• When did you come to Medjugorje for the first time?
After filming was completed, and that was in Malta, I decided to come to Medjugorje. When I was 20, an inner voice would say to me that I should become an actor. When I spoke about that with my father, he used to say, “If God wants something of you it is for you to become a priest. Why would He want you to become an actor?” I did not understand either at that time.
Again, I asked myself the same question, Does God want me to become an actor to make lots of money and to become rich? I was aware of the imbalance in the world between those who have a lot and those who barely have enough for survival, and I knew that was not what God wanted. And was I to make a choice to seek wealth, which does not provide permanent happiness, or to serve God, Who wants to guide my life?
At that time, Medjugorje reminded me of Bethlehem, and I thought, Just as Jesus was born in a small place, in the same way, the Mother of God is appearing in a poor village in between hills. Those four days I spent in Medjugorje, at that time, were my turning point. In the very beginning, I was still amazed at how much people prayed in Medjugorje. Everything reminded me of basketball camp. There you do not play just one match a day, but continually. The same as in school, where you do not read just once a day, but always, repeatedly. In those first days in Medjugorje, I felt inner unrest while I was praying, because I was not used to praying that much, and I was asking God to help me. After four days the only thing I wanted to do was to pray. Whenever I prayed, I felt connected with God. That was an experience I would wish for every Catholic! Maybe as a child, I felt something similar, and I forgot about it. Now it was given to me again.
The same experience continued back at home. In our family, we live the sacraments together. As we drive the kids to school, we pray the rosary together. Sometimes when I don’t start to pray, my son starts first.
When I came to Medjugorje for the second time, I expected to have those first, initial experiences again, but it was different. After lunch one day, some pilgrims invited me to go with them to visit Fr. Jozo Zovko in Siroki Brijeg. That was also my wife’s desire. I didn’t know Fr. Jozo personally, but I was very much impressed by all stories I heard about him. I met with him. He laid his hands on my shoulders. I laid mine on his shoulders. He laid his hands on my head. I laid mine on his head. In that moment, I felt the words within me: “I love you, my brother. This man loves God.” Fr. Jozo spontaneously turned towards his interpreter and asked her who I was and said that he wanted to talk to me. That was beginning of a lasting friendship.
That was the time immediately after we finished shooting the “Passion,” and around that time, I was able to experience all conflicting forces within me regarding that movie.
• Can you tell us why you felt that way, and what was the connection between that movie and Medjugorje?
You are probably familiar with expression “to cross the Rubicon.” That means it is not possible to go back. You reach the point of no return. The “Passion” was such a Rubicon for me. When shooting started, I was 33 years old, just like Jesus. I always wondered if I was even worthy to play Jesus. Ivan Dragicevic encouraged me and said that God does not always necessarily choose the best, which is something he sees in his own situation. If it wasn’t for Medjugorje, I wouldn’t have ever agreed to take that part, because it was in Medjugorje that my heart opened to prayer and to the sacraments. If I wanted to play Jesus, I knew I needed to be very close to Him. Every day I went to Confession, and I attended Eucharistic Adoration. Mel Gibson was coming to Holy Mass, as well, with the condition that Holy Mass was in Latin. That was good because in that way I learned Latin.

There were always new temptations from which I needed to defend myself, and in those inner battles, I used to feel great inner peace – for instance, in the scene where the Mother of God approaches me, and I say to her: “Look, I make everything anew.” We repeated that scene four times, and I felt every time that I was standing too much in the forefront. Then somebody hit the cross, and my left shoulder was dislocated. Due to that sudden and sharp, intense pain, I lost balance, and I fell under the weight of the cross. I hit the dusty ground with my face, and blood gushed forth suddenly from my nose and mouth. I repeated the words Jesus said to His mother: “Look, I make everything anew.” My shoulder was in incredible pain when I took the cross again and felt how precious it was. At that point, I stopped acting, and you could only see Jesus. He came forward as to the answer to my prayer: “I want people to see you, Jesus, not me!”
Thanks to continuous prayer of the rosary – I can’t begin to tell how many rosaries I said during the time of shooting – I was able to experience a special grace. I knew I wasn’t supposed to use bad language. I knew I couldn’t be rude if I wanted to say something to members of the crew. Most of them did not know about Medjugorje. They were all great actors, and we were lucky to get them. But how was I to bring Medjugorje to them, if not by my own life? Medjugorje, for me, means to live the sacraments and be in unity with the Church. Thanks to Medjugorje, I started to believe that Jesus was really present in the Eucharist and that He forgives my sins. Through Medjugorje, I experienced how the rosary is a powerful prayer and what a gift we have when we attend Holy Mass every day.
How could I help other people to increase their faith in Jesus? I realized that this can only happen if Jesus is present in me through the Eucharist, and so people would see Jesus through my life. When we were shooting the scene of the Last Supper, I had an inner pocket made in my clothes where I placed some relics of saints and a relic of Christ’s Cross. I had a strong desire for Jesus to be really present, and so I asked the priest to expose the Blessed Sacrament. At first, he did not want to do that, but I was persistent in asking, because I was positive that people would recognize Christ more, if I myself was looking at Him. The priest was standing with the Blessed Sacrament in his hands next to a cameraman, and together with him, he approached me. When people watch the movie and see a shimmer in my eyes, they are not aware that they really see Jesus, a reflection of the consecrated Host, in my eyes. The same was in the scene of the Crucifixion. The priest was there; he held the Blessed Sacrament in his hands, and I prayed all the time.
The biggest challenge in the movie was not, as I originally thought, to memorize all the texts in Latin, Aramaic, or Hebrew, but all the physical efforts I needed to overcome. During the last scene, my shoulder was sprained, and it became dislocated every time somebody hit the cross. While we filmed the scenes of the scourging, I was twice caught by those whips, and I had a 14 cm wound on my back. My lungs were full of fluid, and I had pneumonia. Chronic sleep deprivation should be added to that, since for months, I had to get up at 3:00 in the morning, because make-up would take almost eight hours.
Another special challenge was the cold weather, temperatures hardly above zero, which was especially difficult to endure in the Crucifixion scene. My whole costume was made of one single piece of light fabric. While we were shooting the last scene, the clouds were very low and lightning struck the cross to which I was tied. Suddenly everything was silent around me, and I felt my hair standing on edge. About 250 people who were around me saw my whole body being illuminated, and they all saw fire on the left and on the right side of me. Many were shocked at what they saw.
I know that the “Passion” is movie of love, maybe one of the greatest of such movies. Jesus today is subject of many controversies, more than ever before. There are so many factors that threaten this created world, but faith in Jesus is the source of joy. I think God is calling us in a special way in this time, and we need to answer that call with our whole heart and whole body.

Read more stories of conversion involving Medjugorje in the book: Full of Grace: Miraculous Stories of Healing and Conversion through Mary’s Intercession.

  • ttp://

Muslim toddler cured by a miracle of St. Charbel (Video)

Muslim toddler cured by a miracle of St. Charbel (Video)
The little girl, named Milan was two years old when she fell ill with cancer and after was attacked by a deadly virus. Her mother, a Muslim refugee in Damascus, turned to St. Charbel and the child healed.

Beirut (AsiaNews) - A three year old girl, Milan, from a Sunni family in Syria, was healed thanks to the intervention of St. Charbel, the Lebanese hermit saint, canonized in 1977 by Pope Paul VI. The family is a family of refugees from Damascus, who arrived in Lebanon after the civil war which has been destroying the country more than four years.
The girl had a tumor and during treatment was also attacked by a virus very serious. Her mother’s  prayer to St. Charbel healed her daughter and now little Milan, seems to have a very special relationship with "Father Charbel."

The episode occurred two months ago and is documented by the reports of OTV (Orange TV), in Arabic.  Below we publish the literal translation.
Some Christian devotions have spread in many parts of the Muslim world (such as devotion to Mary, Our Lady, and the desire to be freed from the devil. See: "Millions of Muslims devoted to Our Lady and eager for exorcism”.
Speaker: Emigrated from Damascus to Ta'albeya, having fled the terror of Daesh [Arabic acronym for the Islamic State-ed], in search of peace and security she was gripped by a tumor just as she was blowing out the candles of her second year of life:

- (Mother) "Her type of cancer is very difficult, because her tumor, disappears and reappears regularly and each time it returns, it grows stronger threatening to take her away from us. This is due to the fact that following the transplant  she was hit by a virus called CNP, a highly dangerous virus, as deadly as her illness. She took really powerful drugs but the disease didn’t go away. Indeed, over time, it worsened dramatically. So, we kind of reached a decision for her own peace of mind to take her out of hospital, placing ourselves in God's hands, waiting to see what would happen".
(Soundtrack: The song of Majida El Rumi dedicated to St Charbel: "He drowned in his own pain, light oil lamps")
Speaker: A lengthy Golgotha ​​for little Milan who suffered so much pain, but the faith of her mother saved her.
(Soundtrack: The song of Majida El Rumi dedicated to St Charbel: "O Charbel Charbel help us oh help us, O Charbel protect us, O Charbel protect all of us"
- (Mother): I brought her here to Zahle [Christian village in the Bekaa Valley that houses a shrine of St. Charbel- ed] on a pilgrimage. The next day, Tuesday, we went to the doctor for another analysis of the virus, and the doctor told me that the test result was negative, all of a sudden there was no trace of the virus. A miracle had eradicated the virus from her body. "
(Soundtrack: The song of Majida El Rumi dedicated to St Charbel: "You whose gifts give glory to Lebanon!"
Speaker: Charbel took the hand of this Sunni Muslim family to defeat, through his intercession, the disease of their small child, their little girl, through his intercession.
- (Mother): "It was 8 pm, and on the way back home, she had fallen asleep. When Milan woke up she said 'Today, Father Charbel came to see me' "
- (Milan): "Father Charbel told me, I prayed to God to heal you! He gave me water and it was enough "
(Soundtrack: The song of Majida El Rumi dedicated to St. Charbel, "Leave me like an Oak kneeling in front of  the vine that is pressed but never destroyed".
Speaker: The relationship that unites the three year old girl with St. Charbel is an extraordinary relationship, a friend in times of sadness, her refuge to feel less pain, his church is the only place where she feels safe.
- The Mother: "Whenever she feels pain, she goes and takes the holy card of St. Charbel, cries, then starts to talk to him, but I do not know what she says or understand the nature of this relationship that unites them. These things no one knows except the two of them. " 
(Soundtrack: The song of Majida El Rumi dedicated to St Charbel: "O Charbel Protect, Protect us!"
Little Milan: "I love you very much St. Charbel!"

Bp. Sanborn and Fr. Cekada have been informed. They are not in ignorance.Why must they make the same error as Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger?

Immagine correlata

Comments from Sedevacantist community in Florida still remaing in hiding like diocesan priests in Rome and do not answer questions on the Faith

AnonymousIntroibo Ad Altare Dei said...
Here are your points answered:

1. The entire issue has nothing to do with EENS and everything to do with HOW membership in the Church is obtained. You can receive BOW OR BOB (without BOW) OR BOD (without BOW). The Feeneyites will admit ONLY BOW (or they fancy BOW must follow BOB or BOD; which is not true because BOB and BOD are sufficient in and of themselves). BOB and BOD have been taught by the Church since the beginning. To deny them as sufficient for Church membership is a mortal sin against the Faith. It is heresy. See

2. You are obsess with "exceptions." You don't understand the problem which is why you can't comprehend the answer. To deny BOD as sufficient in and of itself is heretical. If someone said hypothetically, "Christ could commit sin" it is not an exception to his sinlessness since we can't see Him commit sin nor do we know of any sin He committed. We can't see Him in Heaven.WRONG! It is heresy because it says IT IS POSSIBLE. The hypothesis alone is enough to bring the censure of heresy. Christ, Who is God, cannot commit sin, and whether there are actual cases or not, does not matter. Likewise, to deny the efficacy of BOD without BOW is heresy even if only hypothetical. It doesn't matter that we can't see the dead, etc. The hypothesis alone is enough to be guilty of heresy.

3. They are in mortal sin. He is not wrong. LG 16 is an heretical hypothesis as explained above.
October 8, 2015 at 1:39 PM

 Immagine correlata
Here are your points answered:

1. The entire issue has nothing to do with EENS and everything to do with HOW membership in the Church is obtained. You can receive BOW OR BOB (without BOW) OR BOD (without BOW).

So are you saying that BOD with or without the baptism of water is invisible for us and so is not an exception to the dogma EENS? Is Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada actually saying this ?


The Feeneyites will admit ONLY BOW (or they fancy BOW must follow BOB or BOD; which is not true because BOB and BOD are sufficient in and of themselves).
It is a dogma of the church that all need the baptism of water for salvation.
It is not a dogma of the Church that BOD is sufficient and must exclude the baptism of water.
Anyway these cases are hypothetical.You and Bishop Sanborn do not know of any specific case. So how can you assume in principle that there are persons saved as such or going to be saved as such when you do not know and cannot know of any specific case?. How can you make a theoretical rule when no one in Church in history could know of any case?


BOB and BOD have been taught by the Church since the beginning.
I repeat BOB and BOD is not an issue. But at issue is whether these cases are invisible or visible. You provided a whole list of BOD cases and I mentioned that not a single one states that they are explicit and so an exception to the dogma.So Fr.Cekada cannot cite them as a reference. They are not exceptions or relevant to the Feeeneyite version of EENS.
Not a single of the BOD references cited claim that BOD is explicit,objective and visible to us humans. Yet this is what is implied by Fr. Cekada in his article.He has done all his research on this subject assuming BOD is explicit. Then he condemns the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary for not accepting explicit BOD as an excedption to the dogma. He even ludicrously calls it a mortal sin.
So I have to keep asking you again and again is BOD explicit or implicit, visible or invisible and not one of you from the community at Florida will respond.
You still have not answered is LG 16 explicit or implicit ?


To deny them as sufficient for Church membership is a mortal sin against the Faith. It is heresy.
BOD and BOB does not have to be denied since for me they are always invisible and theoretical they are not exceptions to the dogma EENS. They are irrelevant to the dogma.
However it is heresy to say that they are explicit and then imply that they are exceptions to EENS and to the Nicene Creed which says I believe in one baptism for the forgivessness of sin and not three known baptisms.


Immagine correlata

2. You are obsess with "exceptions."
When Fr. Cekada says the community of Fr. Leonard Feeney must accept BOD without the baptism of water he is referring to an exception.So I have to respond.
He implies that there is a known case of someone saved with the baptism of desire in the present times ( 2015). It would have to be in the present times to be relevent to EENS. Then he assumes that this 'explicit' case is there in Heaven without the baptism of water. So he wants the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to accept this fantasy. His reasoning is based on an irrational premise and inference.
You support all this !


You don't understand the problem which is why you can't comprehend the answer. To deny BOD as sufficient in and of itself is heretical.
When you refer to BOD specify if it is expliict BOD or implicit BOD you are referring to.
To suggest BOD is explicit is nonsense. Common sense tells us BOD cases are in Heaven and so they cannot be explicit on earth.
Numerous times I have mentioned this point but you have not answered it. This is a common sense question.Can you see the dead-saved now in Heaven with BOD? Is LG 16 an exception to EENS?


If someone said hypothetically, "Christ could commit sin" it is not an exception to his sinlessness since we can't see Him commit sin nor do we know of any sin He committed. We can't see Him in Heaven.WRONG! It is heresy because it says IT IS POSSIBLE. The hypothesis alone is enough to bring the censure of heresy. Christ, Who is God, cannot commit sin, and whether there are actual cases or not, does not matter.
No one is making this claim
However Fr. Cekada says it is a mortal sin for the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary since they do not accept visible in the flesh for us BOD. Does this make sense ?
What if the Sisters said that they accept implicit for us and explicit for God only BOD. What would be his reaction? Would he say, "No! You must accept visible for us BOD otherwise I do not have any case against you".


Likewise, to deny the efficacy of BOD without BOW is heresy even if only hypothetical.
The dogmatic teaching on EENS is de fide.It says all need the baptism of water for salvation. This is not my opinion.
If you claim BOD excludes the baptism of water you are denying the dogma like the liberals. This is heretical for me.It would also be your opinion.
The second important point is, even if it was your opinion, either way, with or without the baptism of water, you are referring to an invisible, non existing case out of our reality.


It doesn't matter that we can't see the dead, etc.
It matters when Fr. Cekada assumes BOD is visible, and Bishop Sanborm assumes LG 16 and LG 8 cases refer to explicit people, known people. Since if these cases were not explicit Vatican Council II for them would not be an exception to the old ecclesiology based on EENS.
But it is an exception. So it matters when they infer that they can see the dead.

3. They are in mortal sin. He is not wrong. LG 16 is an heretical hypothesis as explained above.
Is LG 16 ( invincible ignorance)a heretical hypothesis when it is explicit or implicit?
Why cannot Fr. Cekada answer this?
For me LG 16 refers to an invisible case and so it  is not an explicit exception to EENS. It is an not an exception to the old ecclesiology based on EENS.So Vatican Council II does not contradict the old ecclesiology. Since there cannot be an explicit exception( LG 16, LG 8 etc).
For Fr. Cekada and the Florida seminary LG 16 and LG 8 refer to explicit cases and so VC2 becomes a break with the old ecclesiology. They condemn VC2 when the fault lies with them not making the correct explicit-implicit distinction.
Like Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada's formation under Archbishop Lefebvre, all three of them innocently have used an irrationality to interpret VC2. So the result is heretical and so they reject VC2.
Archbishop Lefebvre was correct that VC2 was heretical but he did not know that it was because of the invisible-visible distinction. This was not known to the Magisterium too. So they did not help him. Instead they wrongly excommunicated him.
In his mind Vatican Council II was heretical and he was correct.It was heretical with explicit LG 16, LG 8 instead of implicit LG 16 and LG 8.

Bp. Sanborn and Fr. Cekada have been informed. They are not in ignorance.Why must they make the same error as Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger?
-Lionel Andrades